RE: virus: Belief and Knowledge (was: The truth about faith)

Wright, James 7929 (
Tue, 08 Jul 97 13:41:00 EDT

From: Wade T.Smith[]
>far longer than it
>takes for smarter scientists and more ingenious engineers to develop the

>tools that will be required to measure the powers of the mind.[JHW]

>Oh well, we can both shout 'you just don't get it' from our respective

True enough, but I am not asking you to declare even that powers of the
mind exist; only that they are possible, and you are unwilling to do even

>I am asking for some valid demonstration of these 'powers of the mind'.
>I am honestly and rationally and respectfully asking you to provide some

>facts. Apologia are not facts.[WTS]
I am not apologizing for anything. I simply propose that there are areas
that science either does not address well, or at all, and that powers of
the mind may exist that the general populace either does not or will not
develop. If you choose, you can label this the "non-physical world", or
> Zigzagging around the 'measurement is impossible' excuse is, in this
forum, >unforgivable.[WTS}
Interesting point of view; only ideas that accord with yours are
> Every yogic response is measurable by the proper equipment, and has
been. If >you are equating subjective impressions of sensory data with
great revelations >about the workings of the mind, you are deluded.[WTS]
My goodness, you have a direct way of argument! What shall you say about
those who dismiss without investigation?
Every time a skeptic wants to dismiss something not well explained or
understood, he calls it "subjective".
>You have to first show a valid example of these 'powers of the mind'.
>haven't. In fact, no-one has in recorded history. Myth, fable, anecdote,

>and the tales of fervent believers are not, and have never been, valid
Very well; I shall direct you to Here is a
group who claims to be investigating powers of the mind, including the
ability to create "out-of-body experiences." They even claim that their
products MAY induce such experiences, although they cannot GUARANTEE that
such experiences will occur. Since they cannot guarantee that everyone
who uses their products will have such an experience, are they totally
outside the realm of science?
Are you familiar with the experiments done with Dr. Monroe, who was once
asked to read a number written on a paper on top of a shelf he could not
reach? He was observed the entire time, did not climb up to the shelf (no
other fraud) and was able to identify the number, perfectly. The odds on
his guessing the number were suggested to be 1 in 40,000 or some such. I
guess he was just that lucky, wasn't he? This has also been repeated with
other individuals.(Citations available on request; I just happened to
wander across the Monroe Institute while searching for something on the
Web to allow others to observe the discussion).
Of course, they could be "fervent believers" who are out to dupe the
public into handing over good money for their own enrichment, or they
just might be poor deluded souls who have no idea what real science is
and wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit them. Then again, perhaps
they're just charlatans and idiots, since they are pursuing something
that can't possibly exist.

>What do you think you are demonstrating to me? [WTS]

I have tried with two logical arguments (radioactivity and relativity) to
show you one of the central weaknesses of skeptical materialism;
phenomena which are not physically demonstrable are dismissed. The
possibility of inadequate technology to demonstrate non-physical
phenomena is dismissed as an "excuse"; the possibility that anything that
cannot be measured TODAY RIGHT NOW exists is "myth, fable and anecdote".
Do yourself a favor and ignore the URL I listed above; nothing they say
can be true, and trying to check them out yourself is a waste of time.
Skepticism has it's place when it tries to verify existing phenomena and
cannot; it points to holes in theory, defects in equipment, fraud and
mistakes of all kinds. It may also illustrate the limitations of
materialist views of the universe; finally, it may simply show that
something is not well enough understood to merit verification, at least
at this time.